Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

But Steve, it's disrespectful ABOUT AN INANIMATE OBJECT, not an individual.  As gratuitously dismissive as the original post looks on its face, there's no reason to take it personally.  

The more effective approach is to offer your counterpoint, and if you have a nice build to support it, all the better.  Then, the o p either engages in an honest  discussion or hoists himself by his own hanging rope to betray the troll he really is.  And I gotta say, as tetchy as a post or two might have gotten, this discussion was almost admirably restrained by the usual MCM dogpile-the-critic standards.

Your mileage may vary, but these days, I'm finding it better just to wait, watch for the inevitable backfiring petard, then light it up.  

It's not that I take it personally.

I don't.

I've built this kit more than once over the years, but haven't built one in a long time.

Granted, there are better kits available now, but there's nothing wrong with this one either.

What bothers me is when people feel the need to make blanket statements like this about a perfectly viable kit because they don't want to put any effort into it themselves.

It bothers me that there might be some other fledgling modelers out there that might see a post like this and automatically dismiss considering a particular kit because they think that the OP knows something.

 

As you probably know, I have a real affinity for these old annual style kits, and it just irks me a little when people throw their noses in the air with these "holier than thou" criticisms, not really because these are kits that nobody should consider because there's anything seriously deficient about them, but because they think that every kit should be a puzzle that they should be able to just throw together in an afternoon and end up with a masterpiece.

Often, the most worthwhile things in life are things that you have to work at a little.

 

 

 

 

Steve 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snake45 said:

Chuck, you just made my Favorite People List. OH-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! :lol::lol::lol:

HAH!

The really funny bit is that now I'm hankerin' for another AMT original tool '57.

Go figure. 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

HAH!

The really funny bit is that now I'm hankerin' for another AMT original tool '57.

Go figure. 😎

I have one in the Snakepile, but I doubt I'll ever build it. Now that I've seen that kink in the spear trim, I can't un-see it, though it didn't bother me a second when I built mine about 30 years ago. I might cut the rear wheel openings out of the body and graft them into the MPC flip-nose gasser. I can't stand the lower trim line of the spear on that one, either, but I might have figgered out a way to fix it. And if it doesn't work, I can shave off all the trim and build it slick-sides, which is okay for a sedan but just doesn't work for me for a hardtop. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

It's not that I take it personally.

I don't.

I've built this kit more than once over the years, but haven't built one in a long time.

Granted, there are better kits available now, but there's nothing wrong with this one either.

What bothers me is when people feel the need to make blanket statements like this about a perfectly viable kit because they don't want to put any effort into it themselves.

It bothers me that there might be some other fledgling modelers out there that might see a post like this and automatically dismiss considering a particular kit because they think that the OP knows something.

 

As you probably know, I have a real affinity for these old annual style kits, and it just irks me a little when people throw their noses in the air with these "holier than thou" criticisms, not really because these are kits that nobody should consider because there's anything seriously deficient about them, but because they think that every kit should be a puzzle that they should be able to just throw together in an afternoon and end up with a masterpiece.

Often, the most worthwhile things in life are things that you have to work at a little.

Steve 

But when Xingu rightfully brought up the notion of keeping some level of respect between forum members, you seemed to draw a straight equivalence between personal attacks and attacks on a kit:

15 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Well, the OP's initial post wasn't particularly respectful in itself.

Steve

I mean, maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but you could see why some of us might be confused into thinking so, right?

Fledgling modelers following this discussion will see properly framed refutations coming in hard and fast, complete with some handsome finished original-tool models to draw their own conclusions from. And while again things may not be exactly as they appear from your wording, pulling the "lazy modeler" card is a value judgment far more arbitrary than absolute, way too frequently leveraged to turn a thread to personal attacks around here.

To invalidate someone just because he wants a kit with fewer assembly headaches is problematic. It's when the conversation turns measured defense of a kit into hysterical claims of "raving", and calling people "fools" for buying it that the line is truly crossed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

But when Xingu rightfully brought up the notion of keeping some level of respect between forum members, you seemed to draw a straight equivalence between personal attacks and attacks on a kit:

I mean, maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but you could see why some of us might be confused into thinking so, right?

Fledgling modelers following this discussion will see properly framed refutations coming in hard and fast, complete with some handsome finished original-tool models to draw their own conclusions from. And while again things may not be exactly as they appear from your wording, pulling the "lazy modeler" card is a value judgment far more arbitrary than absolute, way too frequently leveraged to turn a thread to personal attacks around here.

To invalidate someone just because he wants a kit with fewer assembly headaches is problematic. It's when the conversation turns measured defense of a kit into hysterical claims of "raving", and calling people "fools" for buying it that the line is truly crossed. 

What it all boils down to from my perspective is that this OP had no intention of starting a relevant and civilized conversation about the pros and cons of this particular kit.

It was obviously conceived as nothing more than an "I don't like it, end of discussion" thought.

No interest, no inquiries, no curiosity about other peoples experiences with the kit, just "I hate it, and so should you".

 

Personally, I think the discussion has become quite informational to anyone who's truly interested in the characteristics of this particular kit, but I don't think any of the impetus falls on the OP, other than the fact that the discussion started with his post.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

'Cause I just like the Revell sedan better from the cowl forward and I think its front clip would improve the new-tool AMT hardtop.

Revell's front bumper is much better, and while we're at it, the Revell headlights look more to scale and the sedan's front wheel arch sweep seems a little closer too.

What's wrong with this one?

revell-57-chevy-bel-air-california_360_d

Isn't this the same thing you would get by putting the Revell front clip on the newer AMT body?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

What bothers me is when people feel the need to make blanket statements like this about a perfectly viable kit because they don't want to put any effort into it themselves.

It bothers me that there might be some other fledgling modelers out there that might see a post like this and automatically dismiss considering a particular kit because they think that the OP knows something.

As you probably know, I have a real affinity for these old annual style kits, and it just irks me a little when people throw their noses in the air with these "holier than thou" criticisms, not really because these are kits that nobody should consider because there's anything seriously deficient about them, but because they think that every kit should be a puzzle that they should be able to just throw together in an afternoon and end up with a masterpiece.

Alright I'm not trying to pick a fight with you personally, but this reply crystalized several things I've read here, so you get the quoted reply.

 

Look this is a diverse hobby, not everyone is in it for the same reason.  The implication repeated here that the OP is just lazy (I mean sure the thread lacks tact, and smacks of trolling to troll) is annoying.  Just because some of you want to engage in hand to hand combat with these older kits - and look I've plenty of them too on subject matter that doesn't exist elsewise - doesn't mean the OP does, or Bob does, or Fred does, etc.  Projecting one's personal opinions on others is the double-edged sword of social media.  He said it's a lousy kit, that's his opinion, and that's where this could have died and sunk to the bottom of the pages.  If y'all wanted to discuss the pros, cons, and pining for the fjords over the original kits, then a separate thread could have been started in Kit Reviews and proven informative without all the continuing subtle shots at the OP.

People who are fledgling (or returning) modelers need good kits, that have good engineering, and yes - can be thrown together like a puzzle.  Because nothing is more discouraging to a new person (no matter what the endeavor), than to be cast into the deep end of something with nobody guiding them and them lacking the experience to tackle the project at hand.  This idea that you start with hard stuff "because it's worth taking on" or "it improves your skills" is utter nonsense.  You know what builds your skills as a modeler? Building models!  You know what people who get kits that are either not what they expected, or exceed their skills do? They don't build, develop a negative opinion of an entire company's product line, or quit altogether.  People can put exactly the same amount of time, effort and passion into a model that doesn't need hours of "fixing" to get it to a buildable state, than some of you guys can battling and winning over that older tooling. I subscribe to the "Bucket of Cares" (language adjusted for family friendliness) theory that states that any modeling project you start has a defined amount of caring you bring into it.  The more the build goes sideways due to tooling, fit, engineering, along with all the associated Murphy's Laws of Modeling that happen you rapidly deplete the bucket.  Eventually your bucket is empty, and you shelve the model unfinished.  It happens to everyone, that's why every single member of this forum with any sort of stash of kits also has a SHELF OF DOOOOOOOM.  

People join this forum returning to the hobby everyday, and instead of place of guidance from their peers, it's a lot of "Old Man Yells at Perceived Insult".  Y'all need to be recommending GOOD kits first, and then offering up these older kits as a "OK now you have some experience, want to tackle making a '57 Chevy Gasser? Cause this Pepper Shaker is the way to go..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is totally entitled to his opinion and it is that simply, he can think and write whatever he wants. 

Some of us where mostly jabbing about worse kits out there, in our opinion, but some folks tend to take things personal and maybe a bit too far. 

There are lots of kits I am not too fond of and that is my choice to like or not like something. For example, I think building Factory Stock is the most boring thing in the world! And thus I rarely do it and that is my choice. If it ruffles your feathers, just think of what you don't like and move on. 

Freedom of Choice 

And one thing I know for sure, the world does not need another '57 Chevy Tool! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plowboy said:

What's wrong with this one?

revell-57-chevy-bel-air-california_360_d

Isn't this the same thing you would get by putting the Revell front clip on the newer AMT body?

No Sir - that's the 2-door post sedan, and AMT's is the hardtop.

AMT mistakenly put a coral sedan on one of their boxings, but it was the new-tool hardtop inside. Nice finishing suggestion for the Revell sedan a few years ahead of time, 'n all...

Not to overplay these, but one more shot.  Metallic red on the left is the very sedan you linked, Roman Red on the right is the new-tool AMT hardtop:

spacer.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

What it all boils down to from my perspective is that this OP had no intention of starting a relevant and civilized conversation about the pros and cons of this particular kit.

It was obviously conceived as nothing more than an "I don't like it, end of discussion" thought.

No interest, no inquiries, no curiosity about other peoples experiences with the kit, just "I hate it, and so should you".

Personally, I think the discussion has become quite informational to anyone who's truly interested in the characteristics of this particular kit, but I don't think any of the impetus falls on the OP, other than the fact that the discussion started with his post.

 

Steve

Oh sure, torpedoing a model dating from the Kennedy Administration proved to be the objective once the name-calling started, but it's a BIT of a walk from "I wouldn't recommend it to anyone" to "I hate it and so should you" in that first post.  Again, easy to confuse with taking it all personally. 

This isn't anybody's mother the o p attacked. It was an old plastic kit.  People can realize there's no objective reason to be annoyed by that and decide not to be.  Or, they can take grave personal offense and then reverse-engineer a bunch of rationalizations to justify their personal attacks, and that's the conduct that usually drives a thread right off the rails of civility.  Again, not to accuse you of doing so, and this thread is more of an exception than it is the usual pattern.

I'd also posit that as long as the discussion bends to something informative, it doesn't really matter what the original poster intended.  In fact, if there's a take-away message from this thread, it's that if your objective truly is an "end of discussion", then a summary hatchet job is destined to backfire spectacularly.  The judgments passed on the foolishness of the buyer and the laziness of the builder have clouded up a lot of what went right in this topic: state your objective refutation, and back it up with photo support if ya got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

People who are fledgling (or returning) modelers need good kits, that have good engineering, and yes - can be thrown together like a puzzle.  Because nothing is more discouraging to a new person (no matter what the endeavor), than to be cast into the deep end of something with nobody guiding them and them lacking the experience to tackle the project at hand.

Lord, how did we make it for 40 years when all there was were "lousy" kits before the "good" ones came along? <_<

 

 

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Oh sure, torpedoing a model dating from the Kennedy Administration proved to be the objective once the name-calling started, but it's a BIT of a walk from "I wouldn't recommend it to anyone" to "I hate it and so should you" in that first post.  Again, easy to confuse with taking it all personally. 

This isn't anybody's mother the o p attacked. It was an old plastic kit.  People can realize there's no objective reason to be annoyed by that and decide not to be.  Or, they can take grave personal offense and then reverse-engineer a bunch of rationalizations to justify their personal attacks, and that's the conduct that usually drives a thread right off the rails of civility.  Again, not to accuse you of doing so, and this thread is more of an exception than it is the usual pattern.

I'd also posit that as long as the discussion bends to something informative, it doesn't really matter what the original poster intended.  In fact, if there's a take-away message from this thread, it's that if your objective truly is an "end of discussion", then a summary hatchet job is destined to backfire spectacularly.  The judgments passed on the foolishness of the buyer and the laziness of the builder have clouded up a lot of what went right in this topic: state your objective refutation, and back it up with photo support if ya got it.

I understand all that you guys are saying, and I respect it, but the whole thing of just appearing out of nowhere, proclaiming that something sucks, regardless of what it is, and then basically disappearing into the ether, just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not going to pretend it doesn't.

 

I'm going to return now to my lousy old models.

 

By the way, If there is anyone that has a lousy model from the same era that the AMT '57 Chevy tooling comes from, I would be more than happy to take it off of your hands.

And while we're on the subject, Tamiya's kits are lousy, and so is their paint! ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

I understand all that you guys are saying, and I respect it, but the whole thing of just appearing out of nowhere, proclaiming that something sucks, regardless of what it is, and then basically disappearing into the ether, just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not going to pretend it doesn't.

 

I'm going to return now to my lousy old models.

 

By the way, If there is anyone that has a lousy model from the same era that the AMT '57 Chevy tooling comes from, I would be more than happy to take it off of your hands.

And while we're on the subject, Tamiya's kits are lousy, and so is their paint! ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

Ohhhh Steven,  I tried I'll take it off your hands already....no takers🙄😆

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know.

This whole thing makes me want to move my '57 Nomad project up to the front of the line.

I got an old built AMT '57, an old built AMT '55 Nomad, a rechromed Revell '57 Nomad rear bumper which I sectioned to fit the AMT body and a rechromed front bumper which I seprated the part that attaches to the hood and removed the mold seams from.

I hope I can make something presentable from all of this. Might even fill the hole in the firewall. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

Ya know.

This whole thing makes me want to move my '57 Nomad project up to the front of the line.

I got an old built AMT '57, an old built AMT '55 Nomad, a rechromed Revell '57 Nomad rear bumper which I sectioned to fit the AMT body and a rechromed front bumper which I seprated the part that attaches to the hood and removed the mold seams from.

I hope I can make something presentable from all of this. Might even fill the hole in the firewall. 😉

DO IT! As soon as you get it finished--or maybe even just in final primer--Revell will announce a new-tool, SOTA '57 Nomad! Look what I accomplished by buying up and working on several expensive 1G Novas! B):lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

Ya know.

This whole thing makes me want to move my '57 Nomad project up to the front of the line.

I got an old built AMT '57, an old built AMT '55 Nomad, a rechromed Revell '57 Nomad rear bumper which I sectioned to fit the AMT body and a rechromed front bumper which I seprated the part that attaches to the hood and removed the mold seams from.

I hope I can make something presentable from all of this. Might even fill the hole in the firewall. 😉

The Nomad kits (there was a bashing threa on them a while back) get a lot of criticism, so I ditto what "Snake" said.😃

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

DO IT! As soon as you get it finished--or maybe even just in final primer--Revell will announce a new-tool, SOTA '57 Nomad! Look what I accomplished by buying up and working on several expensive 1G Novas! B):lol:

Ah, but ya see, you can't make that your GOAL!  New tools can only happen entirely by surprise.  I know.  Got a Tamiya pre-built 1/12 288 GTO to force kit version, and a mint original '67 Cougar when rumors swirled Revell might be on the cusp of something new -

and fate just laughed. 😐

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Ah, but ya see, you can't make that your GOAL!  New tools can only happen entirely by surprise.  I know.  Got a Tamiya pre-built 1/12 288 GTO to force kit version, and a mint original '67 Cougar when rumors swirled Revell might be on the cusp of something new -

and fate just laughed. 😐

Yeah I know, wishfull thinking.    

Anyway, I'm surprised someone hasn't jumped on the Nomad bashing yet, but I'm guessing it's just a matter of time huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TransAmMike said:

Yeah I know, wishfull thinking.    

Anyway, I'm surprised someone hasn't jumped on the Nomad bashing yet, but I'm guessing it's just a matter of time huh.

I mean I know I've quibbled a bit about the new-tool AMT '57 hardtop, but now that Revell has locked 2-dr sedans and the convertible, it might be high time for Round 2 to pick up the Nomad gauntlet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

No Sir - that's the 2-door post sedan, and AMT's is the hardtop.

AMT mistakenly put a coral sedan on one of their boxings, but it was the new-tool hardtop inside. Nice finishing suggestion for the Revell sedan a few years ahead of time, 'n all...

Not to overplay these, but one more shot.  Metallic red on the left is the very sedan you linked, Roman Red on the right is the new-tool AMT hardtop:

spacer.png

 

OK. I was thinking what was on the box was in the box. I had it in my mind that the stock version was a sedan and the street machine version was the hardtop. 

I noticed on my 150 that there's a pretty good dip in the roof between the A and B pillars. Looks like your Bel Air has the same issue or maybe it's a reflection?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Seriously, haven't this discussion deviated enough from what the original subject was about...the old tool AMT 1957 Chevy kit, at least I'm getting more and more confused when I try to read everything as some posts are about the original subject the OP posted and among them lots of posts about all other 57 kits made after the AMT kit, if you want to talk about them it's better to start a new topic and stop hijacking this one.

Edited by Force
Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that any fledgling newbie modeler will ever read through all these comments.  I'm no newbie, and I can't believe I kept up with it! I'm pretty sure I'll start ignoring this thread.  The only amusing thing left here is that the person who started this thread never came back to comment.  I kept waiting, and waiting . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Xingu locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...